9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT] , the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that Tribunals should not interfere with the Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, agreeing to the settlement Plan submitted by the Corporate Debtor, once it got the approval of Committee of Creditors , with more than 90% voting in its favour. This Tribunal bearing in mind of a primordial fact that the Operational Creditor had admitted that entire sum of Rs. 1,86,389/- was received by the Petitioner and added further the averments made in the Petition by the Resolution Professional as withdrawal was approved by the CoC meeting that took place on 06.06.2022 (third meeting), the IA 676(CHE)/2022 filed by the Resolution Professional in the main IBA/374/2020 on the file of the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Division Bench II, (filed under section 12A of the Code) was rightly allowed by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Division Bench II, Chennai. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide intention' which was not stalled / withdrawn, rather supressed the CIRP order to the Civil Court in OS/129/2020, and the matter was transferred to 'Commercial Court' on 23.04.2020. Moreover, the 'first hearing', of the 'Commercial Court' in COS/326/2022 was fixed on 06.07.2022 and the same was adjourned to 28.06.2022, 11.10.2022 and 04.11.2022, 15.11.2022, 13.12.2022 and 27.03.2023 respectively. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently takes a plea that the 'Principles of Natural Justice' were not adhered to by the 'Adjudicating Authority' /Tribunal and without furnishing any detailed recording of the objections, projected by the Appellant, the 'impugned order' came to be passed in a mechanical manner. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant adverts to the Judgement of this Tribunal in CA(AT)(CH)(Ins.)61/2023 wherein at paragraph 4 and 5 it is observed as under:- "4. Taking into Consideration, the submissions of both the Parties as well as the facts of the case on hand, this 'Tribunal' is of the considered view that in the interest of Justice, an opportunity may be accorded to the 'Appellant', herein to be heard on merits, before the 'Adjudicating Authority' an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in IA 676/2022. Moreover, the Appellant had filed a complaint against the Resolution Professional to IBBI, through mail dated 01.08.2022. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, brings to the notice of this Tribunal that without appreciating the fact that the Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal has no equity jurisdiction to pass such suo moto orders without following 'Due Process of Law' as prescribed under the I&B Code. 14. The other line of argument projected on the side of the Appellant is that the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal had failed to call the parties, to file their 'Form-FA' as required, to pass 'withdrawal of CIRP'. 15. According to the Applicant/Committee of Creditors represented by Shri S.R. Shriraam Shekher, Resolution Professional of M/s Prodeb Brewery Technology Belgium Pvt. Ltd. In IA 676/2022 in Company Petition No. IBA/374/2020(filed under Section 60(5)) read with Section 12A of the I&B Code in the third CoC meeting, which was convened by the Resolution Professional with due notice to the Applicant, as well as the Operational Creditors, on 06.06.2022, Mr. C.Satish Kumar one of the Suspended Directors, on behalf of himself and other Directors of Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Shekher, Resolution Professional seeking for an order of withdrawal of CIRP initiated by the Petitioner by an order dated 16.03.2022 in main Company Petition IBA/374/2020 on the file of 'National Company Law Tribunal' Division Bench II, Chennai (filed u/s 9 of the Code), resting upon 'Resolution' passed by CoC, in the third meeting that took place on 06.06.2022, for accepting the 'offer of settlement', submitted by the Corporate Debtor and for withdrawal of CIRP as per Section 12A (r/w Section 60(5) of the Code). 21. At this juncture, this 'Tribunal', amply points out that an Adjudicating Authority / Tribunal may allow withdrawal of Section 7 Application, even after admission of an 'application', made by an Applicant, with an approval of 90% voting shares of Committee of Creditors. 22. It is to be remembered that in terms of Rule 8 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy, (Application to Adjudicating Authority Rules), 2016, an Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal may allow withdrawal of an application at the request of the Applicant. Also that an application seeking 'withdrawal' can be allowed only if the Creditors, with 90% voting share along with a Bank Guarantee voted for the same. 23. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court has observed that 'Tribunals' should not interfere with the Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, agreeing to the settlement Plan submitted by the Corporate Debtor, once it got the approval of 'Committee of Creditors', with more than 90% voting in its favour. 31. Be that as it may, in the light of detailed foregoing and this Tribunal bearing in mind of a primordial fact that the Operational Creditor had admitted that entire sum of Rs. 1,86,389/- was received by the Petitioner and added further the averments made in the Petition by the 'Resolution Professional' as withdrawal was approved by the CoC meeting that took place on 06.06.2022 (third meeting), the IA 676(CHE)/2022 filed by the Resolution Professional in the main IBA/374/2020 on the file of the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Division Bench II, (filed under section 12A of the Code) was rightly allowed by the Adjudicating Authority/NCLT, Division Bench II, Chennai. Suffice it for this Tribunal, to make a pertinent mention that the conclusion arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal in allowing the IA(IBC)/676(CHE)/2022 in IBA/374/2020 is free from 'Legal Infirmities'. Accordingly, the instant Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
